Clinical learning evaluation questionnaire: a reliable and valid tool for the evaluation of clinical education by educators and students.
Clinical learning
Medical students
Reliability
Validity
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Aug 2023
30 Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
03
02
2023
accepted:
21
08
2023
medline:
31
8
2023
pubmed:
30
8
2023
entrez:
29
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The clinical learning evaluation questionnaire can be used in the clinical trial period of medical students to measure the effectiveness of the clinical learning environment. The purpose of this study was to collect validity evidence of an adapted questionnaire to measure the transcultural adaptation of a Persian version of CLEQ. A total of 200 questionnaires were completed by students who were at the end of their clinical rotation. The study instrument was the latest version of the CLEQ consists of 18 Items in four dimensions. The CLEQ was translated into Persian language through a four-step process of forward and backward translation. Data analysis was performed on two softwares, SPSS, version 22 and Lisrel, version 8.8. The results showed that the 18-question CLEQ could be applied to the Persian translation of the tool. The response process evidence of the Persian questionnaire was established through feedback from 15 students in the sample group. The content validity index (CVI) for the items were between 0.8 and 0.9, and the content validity ratio (CVR) for the entire questionnaire was 0.9. The 4-factor feature of CLEQ was good model fit. The internal consistency analysis indicated that the Cronbach's alpha values for all items of the 18-item questionnaire were equal to 0.87 and for the subscales were 0.68 to 0.79. The Persian translation of the 4-factor CLEQ has sufficient validity evidence to measure the transcultural adaptability of clinical education activities by instructors and students. The validity evidence are content, response process and internal structure. We recommend that the English 6-factor and 6-factor versions of CLEQ be tested on medical students at multiple foreign academic institutions to assess their efficiency.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The clinical learning evaluation questionnaire can be used in the clinical trial period of medical students to measure the effectiveness of the clinical learning environment. The purpose of this study was to collect validity evidence of an adapted questionnaire to measure the transcultural adaptation of a Persian version of CLEQ.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 200 questionnaires were completed by students who were at the end of their clinical rotation. The study instrument was the latest version of the CLEQ consists of 18 Items in four dimensions. The CLEQ was translated into Persian language through a four-step process of forward and backward translation. Data analysis was performed on two softwares, SPSS, version 22 and Lisrel, version 8.8.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The results showed that the 18-question CLEQ could be applied to the Persian translation of the tool. The response process evidence of the Persian questionnaire was established through feedback from 15 students in the sample group. The content validity index (CVI) for the items were between 0.8 and 0.9, and the content validity ratio (CVR) for the entire questionnaire was 0.9. The 4-factor feature of CLEQ was good model fit. The internal consistency analysis indicated that the Cronbach's alpha values for all items of the 18-item questionnaire were equal to 0.87 and for the subscales were 0.68 to 0.79.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The Persian translation of the 4-factor CLEQ has sufficient validity evidence to measure the transcultural adaptability of clinical education activities by instructors and students. The validity evidence are content, response process and internal structure. We recommend that the English 6-factor and 6-factor versions of CLEQ be tested on medical students at multiple foreign academic institutions to assess their efficiency.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37644540
doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04601-w
pii: 10.1186/s12909-023-04601-w
pmc: PMC10466756
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
618Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
AlHaqwi AI, Kuntze J, van der Molen HT. Development of the clinical learning evaluation questionnaire for undergraduate clinical education: factor structure, validity, and reliability study. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:44.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-44
Irby DM, O’Brien BC, Stenfors T, Palmgren PJ. Selecting instruments for measuring the clinical learning environment of medical education: a 4-domain framework. Acad Med. 2021;96(2):218–25.
Genn JM. AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 23 (Part 1): Curriculum, environment, climate, quality and change in medical education-a unifying perspective. Med Teach. 2001;23(4):337–44.
doi: 10.1080/01421590120063330
Tackett S, Wright S, Lubin R, Li J, Pan H. International study of medical school learning environments and their relationship with student well-being and empathy. Med Educ. 2017;51(3):280–9.
doi: 10.1111/medu.13120
Dolmans DH, Wolfhagen IH, Essed GG, Scherpbier AJ, van der Vleuten CP. The impacts of supervision, patient mix, and numbers of students on the effectiveness of clinical rotations. Acad Med. 2002;77(4):332–5.
doi: 10.1097/00001888-200204000-00016
Schönrock-Adema J, Bouwkamp-Timmer T, van Hell EA, Cohen-Schotanus J. Key elements in assessing the educational environment: where is the theory? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012;17(5):727–42.
doi: 10.1007/s10459-011-9346-8
Roff S, McAleer S, Skinner A. Development and validation of an instrument to measure the postgraduate clinical learning and teaching educational environment for hospital-based junior doctors in the UK. Med Teach. 2005;27(4):326–31.
doi: 10.1080/01421590500150874
Roff S, McAleer S, Harden RM, Al-Qahtani M, Ahmed AU, Deza H, et al. Development and validation of the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM). Med Teach. 1997;19(4):295–9.
doi: 10.3109/01421599709034208
Tsai JC, Chen CS, Sun IF, Liu KM, Lai CS. Clinical learning environment measurement for medical trainees at transitions: relations with socio-cultural factors and mental distress. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:226.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-226
AlThiga H, Mohidin S, Park YS, Tekian A. Preparing for practice: Nursing intern and faculty perceptions on clinical experiences. Med Teach. 2017;39(sup1):S55–s62.
doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2016.1254739
Alnaami N, Al Haqwi A, Masuadi E. Clinical Learning Evaluation Questionnaire: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2020;11:953–61.
doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S243614
Alnaami N, Al Haqwi A, Masuadi E. Clinical learning evaluation questionnaire: a confirmatory factor analysis. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2020;11:953.
doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S243614
De Vet HC, Adèr HJ, Terwee CB, Pouwer F. Are factor analytical techniques used appropriately in the validation of health status questionnaires? A systematic review on the quality of factor analysis of the SF-36. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(5):1203–18.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-5742-3
AlHaqwi AI, Kuntze J, van der Molen HT. Development of the clinical learning evaluation questionnaire for undergraduate clinical education: factor structure, validity, and reliability study. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14(1):1–8.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-44
Chen HY, Boore JR. Translation and back-translation in qualitative nursing research: methodological review. J Clin Nurs. 2010;19(1–2):234–9.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.02896.x
Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975;28(4):563–75.
doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
Zamanzadeh V, Ghahramanian A, Rassouli M, Abbaszadeh A, Alavi-Majd H, Nikanfar A-R. Design and implementation content validity study: development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication. J Caring Sci. 2015;4(2):165.
doi: 10.15171/jcs.2015.017
Vaske JJ, Beaman J, Sponarski CC. Rethinking internal consistency in Cronbach’s alpha. Leis Sci. 2017;39(2):163–73.
doi: 10.1080/01490400.2015.1127189
Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods. 2008;6:53–60.
Almanasreh E, Moles R, Chen TF. Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(2):214–21.
doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.03.066
Goodman ZT, Stamatis CA, Stoler J, Emrich CT, Llabre MM. Methodological challenges to confirmatory latent variable models of social vulnerability. Nat Hazards. 2021;106:2731–49.
doi: 10.1007/s11069-021-04563-6
Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53.
doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Bujang MA, Omar ED, Baharum NA. A review on sample size determination for Cronbach’s alpha test: a simple guide for researchers. The Malaysian journal of medical sciences: MJMS. 2018;25(6):85.
doi: 10.21315/mjms2018.25.6.9
Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol Res Online. 2003;8(2):23–74.